linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 02/34] PCI: Update CXL DVSEC definitions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <696ec1e9cd598_875d100f4@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 15:44:41 -0800
From: <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, Terry Bowman
	<terry.bowman@....com>
CC: <dave@...olabs.net>, <dave.jiang@...el.com>, <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
	<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <shiju.jose@...wei.com>,
	<ming.li@...omail.com>, <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>,
	<rrichter@....com>, <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	<PradeepVineshReddy.Kodamati@....com>, <lukas@...ner.de>,
	<Benjamin.Cheatham@....com>, <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
	<linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, <alucerop@....com>,
	<ira.weiny@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 02/34] PCI: Update CXL DVSEC definitions

Jonathan Cameron wrote:
[..]
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> > index 6c4b6f19b18e..662582bdccf0 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pci_regs.h
> 
> 
> > +/* CXL r4.0, 8.1.3: PCIe DVSEC for CXL Device */
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_DEVICE				0
> > +#define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_CAP				0xA
> 
> Why drop the _DEVICE_ bit of these I'd kind of expect
> #define  PCI_DVSEC_CXL_DEVICE_CAP
> to indicate which DVSEC it is in.

We got by without the redundant _DEVICE_ in the name to date, the port
DVSEC has the _PORT_ differentiation. In the interest of not needing to
review another version of this simple patch I vote leave well enough
alone. Will leave it to Bjorn if he wants to override.

[..]
> > +/* CXL r4.0, 8.1.6: GPF DVSEC for CXL Port */
> > +#define PCI_DVSEC_CXL_PORT_GPF				4
> 
> Nothing like ambiguous naming in the CXL spec as the
> following fields sound like they are in the CXL_PORT dvsec
> but they aren't.  Well the spec avoids it with GPF_FOR_PORT
> but we don't want to go there.  I wonder...
> PCI_DVSEC_CXL_PORTGPF maybe to avoid that?
> 
> Sigh. It's probably not worth it and does look horrible, so stick
> with these.

Not seeing a siginficant improvement in the suggestion.